AN IMPORTANT CONFERENCE IS GOING TO BE HELD IN ROME ON THE MEDICAL CRISIS OF BRAIN DEATH

page1image58723584
day 1 day 2
Opening Prayer Veni Sancte Spiritus9:05 Welcome9:10 “Brain Death” is not Death
Philosophical and Scientific Evidence in BriefJosef Seifert, DDr. Phil. Habil.9:40 The “Birth” of “Brain Death” Thomas Zabiega, M.D.10:30 “Brain Death” is not Death: Clinical Experience Paul Byrne, M.D.11:00 Coffee Break12:00 Apnea Test Procedure versus Aggressive Therapy for Alleged “Brain Dead” PatientsCicero Coimbra, M.D., Ph.D.13:00 Lunch Break14:30 “Non-Heart-Beating” Donors, an Alternative to “Brain-Dead” Donors?Doyen Nguyen, OP, Dr. Med. Hematol., Dr. Moral Theol.15:30 Consent Policy and “Brain Death” Paul Byrne, M.D16:30 Coffee Break
17:00 General Discussion
18:00 End of Day 1. Dinner to Follow (TBA)Closing Prayer Salve ReginaOpening Prayer Veni Sancte Spiritus9:05 Substance and Organism as a Whole
Sed Contra to Moschella’s pro-“Brain Death” Rationale Doyen Nguyen, OP, Dr. Med. Hematol., Dr. Moral Theol.10:30 Critique of the “Brain Death” Concept in the Writings of Robert Spaemann and Wolfgang Waldstein
Fr. Edmund Waldstein, O.Cist., Mag. Theol.11:30 Coffee Break12:00 Fundamental Philosophical Errors and Unthomistic Character of Lee and Grisez’s pro-“Brain Death” Rationale Josef Seifert, DDr. Phil. Habil.13:00 Lunch Break
14:30 Insights into Integration: What Makes an Organism a Whole?D. Alan Shewmon, M.D. (Live Video Presentation) 15:30 Did John Paul II Approve “Brain Death”?Doyen Nguyen, OP, Dr. Med. Hematol., Dr. Moral Theol.16:30 Coffee Break17:00 General Discussion18:00 Truth, the Foundation of a Culture of Life
Bishop Athanasius Schneider (Live Video Presentation)18:30 Concluding Remarks
Announcing the Theme of JAHLF 2020 Conference Josef Seifert, DDr. Phil. Habil18:45 End of Day 2. Banquet to Follow (TBA) Closing Prayer Salve Regina 
page2image42101808
page2image56721152

JA

F A

JAHLF

page3image58820224
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

IT IS HARD TO AVOID BEING CYNICAL ABOUT THE VATICAN SUMMIT NEXT WEEK ON SEX ABUSE

Featured Image
Dorothy Cummings McLean

Dorothy Cummings McLeanF

NEWSCATHOLIC CHURCHHOMOSEXUALITYFri Feb 15, 2019 – 3:31 pm EST

Archbishop Viganò: Vatican Abuse Summit ignores real problem, Pope has ‘lost credibility’

 Carlo ViganoCatholicHomosexualityPope FrancisVatican Abuse Summit

February 15, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Archbishop Carlo Viganò said he is “praying intensely” for the success of the abuse summit happening next week at the Vatican, but he fears that there is “no sign” that Pope Francis, along with organizers, is willing to “attend to the real causes” of the clerical abuse crisis. 

In a Feb. 10 essay published by the National Catholic Register as part of its “Abuse and the Way to Healing” symposium, the former Nuncio to the United States offered some questions that he says reveals a lack of “genuine willingness” to address the crisis.

Viganò’s first questions concerned the reluctance of those who have planned the February meeting to address the problem of predatory clerical sexual misconduct with non-minors.   

“Why will the meeting focus exclusively on the abuse of minors?” he asked. 

“These crimes are indeed the most horrific, but the crises in the United States and Chile that have largely precipitated the upcoming summit have to do with abuses committed against young adults, including seminarians, not only against minors,” the Archbishop continued.  

“Almost nothing has been said about sexual misconduct with adults, which is itself a grave abuse of pastoral authority, whether or not the relationship was ‘consensual.’” 

The Archbishop then addressed the role homosexuality has played in the sexual abuse crisis and how it is not being addressed at all at the summit. 

“Why does the word ‘homosexuality’ never appear in recent official documents of the Holy See?” Viganò asked. 

“This is by no means to suggest that most of those with a homosexual inclination are abusers, but the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of abuse has been inflicted on post-pubescent boys by homosexual clerics,” he observed. 

“It is mere hypocrisy to condemn the abuse and claim to sympathize with the victims without facing up to this fact honestly. A spiritual revitalization of the clergy is necessary, but it will be ultimately ineffectual if it does not address this problem.”

The Archbishop indicated that Pope Francis’ problematic appointments and handling of the abuse crisis so far has made the pope lose credibility. 

“Why does Pope Francis keep and even call as his close collaborators people who are notorious homosexuals?” he asked. 

“Why has he refused to answer legitimate and sincere questions about these appointments? In doing so he has lost credibility on his real will to reform the Curia and fight the corruption,” he added.

In his first testimony, in which he said that Pope Francis knew about then-Cardinal McCarrick’s sexual predation on young priests and seminarians, Viganò alleged Vatican insiders Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, Cardinal Edwin Frederick O’Brien and Cardinal Renato Raffaele Martino belonged to a “homosexual current.” 

Recently Pope Francis appointed the former housemate of the disgraced Theodore McCarrick, Cardinal Kevin Farrell, the papal camerlengo. In this role, Cardinal Farrell will administer the Vatican when Francis dies or resigns until his successor is elected.  

Viganò believes that “doctrinal and moral corruption” of authorities in the seminaries is responsible for the clerical sexual misconduct of recent decades. 

“It is evident to all that a primary cause of the present terrible crisis of sexual abuse committed by ordained clergy, including bishops, is the lack of proper spiritual formation of candidates to the priesthood,” he said. 

“That lack, in turn, is largely explained by the doctrinal and moral corruption of many seminary formators, corruption that increased exponentially beginning in the 1960s.”

The Archbishop himself entered a seminary in Rome in the 1960s.  He remembers that in Rome at this time, some seminarians were very immature and that the seminaries lacked discipline. His own spiritual director believed that ordained priesthood could be a temporary state. Some spiritual directors were knowingly recommending for ordination men who were not living chaste lives.

“At the Gregorian, one of the professors of moral theology favored situation ethics,” Viganò recalled.  “And some classmates confided to me that their spiritual directors had no objection to their presenting themselves for priestly ordination despite their unresolved and continual grave sins against chastity.”

The former Nuncio repeated Benedict XVI’s assertion that men who have deep-seated homosexual inclinations do not belong in seminaries. 

“Certainly, those who suffer from deep-seated same-sex attraction should never be admitted to seminary,” Viganò stated.  

“Moreover, before any seminarian is accepted for ordination, he must not only strive for chastity but actually achieve it. He must already be living chaste celibacy peacefully and for a prolonged period of time, for if this is lacking, the seminarian and his formators cannot have the requisite confidence that he is called to the celibate life.”

Viganò indicated that the “paramount responsibility” for the preparation of men for the priesthood lies with the bishops, and stated that any bishop who covers up sexual misconduct should be removed from his office. 

In regards to Pope Francis, Viganò repeated his October invitation to the pontiff to live up to his responsibilities as St. Peter’s successor. 

“I urged him then, and I now urge him again, to tell the truth, repent, show his willingness to follow the mandate given to Peter and, once converted, to confirm his brothers (Luke 22:32),” he said. 

The Archbishop warned that if the bishops in attendance do not get answers to his questions, they will be betraying their sheep.  

“… I pray that they will not return to their countries without proper answers to these questions, for to fail in this regard would mean abandoning their own flocks to the wolves and allowing the entire Church to suffer dreadful consequence,” he said. 

However,  Viganò  said that despite the problems he has described, he continues to have hope “because the Lord will never abandon his Church.” 

Participants in the National Catholic Register “Abuse and the Way to Healing” symposium include Cardinal Gerhard Müller, Cardinal Wilfrid Napier, Archbishop Charles Chaput, clerical sexual abuse survivor Marie Collins, and Robert Royal. 


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED. JUSTICE HAS FINALLY COME IN THE CASE OF THEODORE McCARRICK, BUT THE DAMAGE DONE BY HIM TO HIS VICTIMS – ESPECIALLY ALL THE CATHOLICS IN CHINA -LIVES ON

Vatican Announces Laicization of Former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick

Steve Skojec

Steve Skojec

February 16, 2019

OnePeterFive

Confirming what has been widely-rumored in recent weeks, the Vatican has announced today that former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who stands at the center of the Church’s re-awakened clerical sex abuse crisis, has been stripped of the clerical state following an investigation into allegations of longstanding abuse of priests, seminarians, and minors.

When levied as a disciplinary measure, laicization is considered one of the most severe forms of punishment for those who have received Holy Orders; for a cleric of McCarrick’s stature, it is unprecedented in modern history.

In a statement released by the Holy See press office this morning, it was announced that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “issued a decree finding Theodore Edgar McCarrick, archbishop emeritus of Washington, D.C., guilty of the following delicts while a cleric: solicitation in the Sacrament of Confession, and sins against the Sixth Commandment with minors and with adults, with the aggravating factor of the abuse of power.” Due to this finding, “The Congresso imposed on him the penalty of dismissal from the clerical state.” The decision was, according to the Holy See Bulletin, communicated to McCarrick yesterday, February 15, 2019. According to the statement, “The Holy Father has recognized the definitive nature of this decision made in accord with law, rendering it a res iudicata (i.e., admitting of no further recourse).” In other words, the decision is not subject to appeal.Embed from Getty ImagesEarlier this week, the Catholic News Agency (CNA) reported that according to sources close to McCarrick, he has “private means” of financial support, and “never drew either a salary or a pension from any of the three dioceses he led.” If he is financially self-sufficient, it may have been a factor in the decision by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith to reduce him to the lay state. According to CNA, “clerical offenders of advanced age or poor health are often kept in a penitential assignment, in recognition that they might otherwise have no means of support.”

On the contrary, however, “If McCarrick were known to be able to provide for his own living outside of Church support, it could weigh against him in any deliberation about imposing a penalty of laicization.”

Laicization also means that McCarrick will no longer hold any ecclesiastical title or office, and will no longer have any legitimate exercise of priestly powers or authority. He will no longer be allowed to preach, teach at a seminary, wear clerical garb or offer Mass or administer sacraments. Because the sacrament of Holy Orders is among those that leave an indelible character on the soul of the recipient, however, he will always retain the sacramental powers of the priesthood, though these may not be used licitly with the exception of an emergency.

As a laicized bishop, he will most likely also be denied a funeral at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in Washington D.C., where he last served as bishop.

Having been reduced to the lay state and stripped of all ecclesiastical offices, the 88-year-old former prelate — until recently one of the most powerful cardinals in the Catholic Church — will be known formally only as “Mr. McCarrick.”

As of this writing, there is no additional information on whether he will continue to live in the monastery in Kansaswhere he currently resides, or if he will be forced to seek other accommodation.

UPDATE: See more on this breaking story from Vatican News.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

I EXPECT TO BE MISQUOTED BY LIBERALS BUT NOT BY CONSERVATIVES SUCH AS THE PUBLISHERS OF THE WANDERER

Thursday, February 14, 2019

Pope John Paul II, Cdl. Sarah, Cdl. Müller & Bp. Gracida on Francis, the “Silent Apostasy” & Religious Indifferentism

After Pope Francis wrote God wills “a diversity of religions” which infers the heresy of religious indifferentism in the “Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living,” Cardinal Gerhard Müller in his “Manifesto of Faith” said:

“The Church is the universal sacrament of salvation in Jesus Christ…”

“… To keep silent about these and other truths of the Faith… [is] ‘the price of their apostasy’ (CCC 675); it is the fraud of the Antichrist.”

Cardinal Robert Sarah connected “religious indifference” and the “silent apostasy”:

“This ‘religious indifference’ and ‘silent apostasy’… [is] the major challenge the Church has to take up today.”
(LifeSiteNews, “Vatican Cardinal warns of ‘silent apostasy’; says Catholic charities must evangelize,” 2011)

Pope John Paul II said that a “vision of man” which is “apart from Christ” or a kind of indifferentism to Christ part takes of the “impression of ‘silent apostasy'”:

[A]n attempt to promote a vision of man apart from God and apart from Christ… [in] European culture gives the impression of ‘silent apostasy.'”
(Ecclesia in Europa No. 9, 2003)

Along this lines, in 319, Alexander of Alexandria in his Catholic Epistle wrote of the Arian heretic Bishop Eusebius and his collaborators:

In our diocese… adversaries of Christ, teaching men to apologize… the precursor  of Antichrist… who have become apostates.”

Apparently, at the time Eusebius was a material heretic and in Alexander’s words a material “apostate” because the Church hadn’t formally condemned Bishop Eusebius.

In this same way, John Paul II, Sarah, Müller and I think Bishop René Henry Gracida are saying there is a “silent apostasy” which implies material heresy, but not formal heresy.

In a recent YouTube video, “Pope Francis: Does God will many Religions,” Thomist Dr. Marshall Taylor and co-host scholar Timothy Gordon showed beyond doubt that the Spanish and Italian transcript of Francis’s words that God wills “a diversity of religions” can only be read as meaning God’s positive will and not permissive will.

As happened in the Beatific Vision material heresy of the Medieval Pope John XXII so Francis needs to recant or be corrected for words that can only be seen as material heresy, but not formal heresy, as Bishop Gracida, I believe, is saying and Cardinal Raymond Burke has implied in his famous Catholic World Report interview where he said “If a Pope would formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope. It’s automatic.”

With the above in mind, The Wanderer on February 14, 2019 posted a article “Did Pope Francis ‘Apostatize’ In Abu Dhabi?” which wrongly claims that Francis’s words can be interpreted in a “orthodox sense” as God’s “permissive (or contingent) will.”

But even worst, the article is promoting the fake news that Bishop Gracida said things in quotes which he didn’t say, but are said in a article “Bergoglians are the party of Apostasy, and no one can deny it NOW!” which the bishop posted from the website From Rome in his blog.

Everyone who follows Bishop Gracida’s blog knows he posts articles which are of interest, but which he doesn’t necessarily agree with.

It is a disgrace and a calumny to quote Bishop Gracida saying things he didn’t say.

The Wanderer owes the bishop an apology.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

IT HAPPENS TO EVERYONE, WHY SHOULD I BE SPARED, BUT TO HAVE IT HAPPEN TO ME IN A CONSERVATIVE JOURNAL LIKE THE WANDERER IS PUZZLING

Thursday, February 14, 2019

Pope John Paul II, Cdl. Sarah, Cdl. Müller & Bp. Gracida on Francis, the “Silent Apostasy” & Religious Indifferentism

After Pope Francis wrote God wills “a diversity of religions” which infers the heresy of religious indifferentism in the “Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living,” Cardinal Gerhard Müller in his “Manifesto of Faith” said:

“The Church is the universal sacrament of salvation in Jesus Christ…”

“… To keep silent about these and other truths of the Faith… [is] ‘the price of their apostasy’ (CCC 675); it is the fraud of the Antichrist.”

Cardinal Robert Sarah connected “religious indifference” and the “silent apostasy”:

“This ‘religious indifference’ and ‘silent apostasy’… [is] the major challenge the Church has to take up today.”
(LifeSiteNews, “Vatican Cardinal warns of ‘silent apostasy’; says Catholic charities must evangelize,” 2011)

Pope John Paul II said that a “vision of man” which is “apart from Christ” or a kind of indifferentism to Christ part takes of the “impression of ‘silent apostasy'”:

[A]n attempt to promote a vision of man apart from God and apart from Christ… [in] European culture gives the impression of ‘silent apostasy.'”
(Ecclesia in Europa No. 9, 2003)

Along this lines, in 319, Alexander of Alexandria in his Catholic Epistle wrote of the Arian heretic Bishop Eusebius and his collaborators:

In our diocese… adversaries of Christ, teaching men to apologize… the precursor  of Antichrist… who have become apostates.”

Apparently, at the time Eusebius was a material heretic and in Alexander’s words a material “apostate” because the Church hadn’t formally condemned Bishop Eusebius.

In this same way, John Paul II, Sarah, Müller and I think Bishop René Henry Gracida are saying there is a “silent apostasy” which implies material heresy, but not formal heresy.

In a recent YouTube video, “Pope Francis: Does God will many Religions,” Thomist Dr. Marshall Taylor and co-host scholar Timothy Gordon showed beyond doubt that the Spanish and Italian transcript of Francis’s words that God wills “a diversity of religions” can only be read as meaning God’s positive will and not permissive will.

As happened in the Beatific Vision material heresy of the Medieval Pope John XXII so Francis needs to recant or be corrected for words that can only be seen as material heresy, but not formal heresy, as Bishop Gracida, I believe, is saying and Cardinal Raymond Burke has implied in his famous Catholic World Report interview where he said “If a Pope would formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope. It’s automatic.”

With the above in mind, The Wanderer on February 14, 2019 posted a article “Did Pope Francis ‘Apostatize’ In Abu Dhabi?” which wrongly claims that Francis’s words can be interpreted in a “orthodox sense” as God’s “permissive (or contingent) will.”

But even worst, the article is promoting the fake news that Bishop Gracida said things in quotes which he didn’t say, but are said in a article “Bergoglians are the party of Apostasy, and no one can deny it NOW!” which the bishop posted from the website From Rome in his blog.

Everyone who follows Bishop Gracida’s blog knows he posts articles which are of interest, but which he doesn’t necessarily agree with.

It is a disgrace and a calumny to quote Bishop Gracida saying things he didn’t say.

The Wanderer owes the bishop an apology.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“Perhaps it will soon be up to the Supreme Court to address the cleavage between the Tenth Circuit and the Seventh Circuit.”


Tenth Circuit Ruling Attacks ‘Stereotype’ That Women’s Breasts Are Erotic

By ED WHELAN

February 15, 2019 3:20 PM

In a ruling today in Free the Nipple-Fort Collins v. City of Fort Collins, a divided panel of the Tenth Circuit has enjoined, on equal-protection grounds, a city ordinance that prohibits women from baring their breasts in public (other than for purposes of breastfeeding) but imposes no restrictions on male toplessness.

In his majority opinion (joined by Judge Mary Beck Briscoe), Judge Gregory A. Phillips cites with approval the district court’s objection that the ordinance “perpetuates a stereotype engrained in our society that female breasts are primarily objects of sexual desire whereas male breasts are not.” In a classic false dichotomy, Phillips concludes that the city’s “professed interest in protecting children derives not from any morphological differences between men’s and women’s breasts but from negative stereotypes depicting women’s breasts, but not men’s breasts, as sex objects.” Ditto for “notions of morality” that might underlie the law.

In dissent, Judge Harris L. Hartz provides some much-needed sense. Some excerpts:

[The city’s ordinance] is part of a long tradition of laws prohibiting public indecency—the public display of portions of the anatomy that are perceived as particularly erotic or serve an excretory function. These laws may be justified as reducing or preventing antisocial behavior caused by indecent exposure: offensive behavior ranging from assault to corruption of youth to simply distraction from productive activity. The Ordinance does not discriminate against women on the basis of any overbroad generalization about their perceived “talents, capacities, or preferences.” To the extent it distinguishes between the sexes, it is based on inherent biological, morphological differences between them. Those differences are not stereotypes. They are not statistical differences, they are not matters of degree. They are differences in anatomical structure that reflect the unique biological roles played by males and females. (Plaintiffs’ “evidence” that the breasts of men and women are essentially identical cannot be taken seriously.) …

And, to go back to first principles in equal-protection jurisprudence, there is nothing inherently invidious to an adult of either gender in declaring that an inherent biological, morphological feature of his or her body is erotic….

Further, even if notions of the erotic are purely culturally based, it is unclear why that is relevant to the validity of indecency laws. The purpose of those laws is to reduce antisocial behavior. Such laws must deal with the real world. Legislation itself is rational even if the behavior it attempts to control is irrational (such as sexual assault purportedly caused by objectification of the female body). What would be the state of society if legislation could control only rational behavior? A regulation designed to reduce the antisocial effects of irrational thinking does not constitute an endorsement of that irrational thinking. Are laws regulating pornography and obscenity invalid if the societal harms they are intended to prevent are caused by cultural influences rather than purely biological ones? Perhaps it will soon be up to the Supreme Court to address the cleavage between the Tenth Circuit and the Seventh Circuit.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

EXPECT NOTHING BUT PRO-FORMA VERBIAGE FROM THE MEETING OF THE HEADS OF ALL EPISCOPAL CONFERENCES IN ROME THIS MONTH ORGANIZED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF CARDINAL CUPICH OF CHICAGO, ONLY GOD CAN CREATE SOMETHING EX NIHILO

Viganò: Rome Has No “Genuine Willingness to Attend to the Real Causes” of Clerical Sex Abuse Crisis

Steve Skojec

Steve Skojec

February 15, 2019

OnePeterFive

In response to an invitation to participate in a National Catholic Register symposium on the Clerical Sex Abuse Summit in Rome later this month, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has once again made public comments about the crisis in the Church. In his brief essay, he signals pessimism about the upcoming meeting, saying, “I am praying intensely for the success of the February summit,” but that there is “no sign of a genuine willingness to attend to the real causes of the present situation.”

Viganò details some of his own experiences in seminary in the 1960s, experiences he says were “marked by a general and very serious lack of discipline” indicative of a move away from “proper spiritual formation of candidates to the priesthood.” He states unequivocally that “those who suffer from deep-seated same-sex attraction should never be admitted to seminary.” He also observes that any seminarian, whatever his sexual orientation, must “not only strive for chastity but actually achieve it.”

“He must already be living chaste celibacy peacefully,” the archbishop writes, “and for a prolonged period of time, for if this is lacking, the seminarian and his formators cannot have the requisite confidence that he is called to the celibate life.”

The former apostolic nuncio then presents the three critical questions that cause him to doubt the likelihood of success at the summit.

First, he asks, “Why will the meeting focus exclusively on the abuse of minors?” Noting that crimes against minors are “the most horrific,” he nevertheless points to the fact that “the crises in the United States and Chile that have largely precipitated the upcoming summit have to do with abuses committed against young adults, including seminarians, not only against minors.”

“Almost nothing,” he writes, “has been said about sexual misconduct with adults, which is itself a grave abuse of pastoral authority, whether or not the relationship was ‘consensual.’”

On the issue of homosexuality, the archbishop asks why the word itself — “homosexuality” never appears in official Vatican documents anymore. Clarifying that while he does not believe that “most of those with a homosexual inclination are abusers,” it is nevertheless noteworthy that “the overwhelming majority of abuse has been inflicted on post-pubescent boys by homosexual clerics.” Not facing this fact, he says, is hypocritical and dishonest, and any attempt to address the need for “spiritual revitalization” in the clergy will fail if it continues to be ignored.

Finally, Viganò asks, “Why does Pope Francis keep and even call as his close collaborators people who are notorious homosexuals? Why has he refused to answer legitimate and sincere questions about these appointments? In doing so he has lost credibility on his real will to reform the Curia and fight the corruption.”

The archbishop, who has been living in hiding since his first public testimony implicated the pope in the coverup of former Cardinal McCarrick’s sexual abuse, once again repeats his request that Pope Francis, “tell the truth, repent, show his willingness to follow the mandate given to Peter and, once converted, to confirm his brothers (Luke 22:32).”

The sex abuse summit will take place in Rome from February 21-25. All of the heads of the bishops’ conferences from around the globe, along with the leaders of the Eastern Catholic churches, have been invited to attend.

The full Viganò symposium piece is below.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

A Service of EWTN Register Logo 289 SHARES Email Email Share Share Tweet Tweet Comment Comment Print Print Pope Francis and Vatican spokesman Alessandro Gisotti aboard the papal plane Jan. 28. Pope Francis and Vatican spokesman Alessandro Gisotti aboard the papal plane Jan. 28. (Mercedes De La Torre via CNA) VATICAN | JAN. 28, 2019 Pope Francis Outlines Key Priorities for February Sex-Abuse Summit Holy Father said he wants world’s bishops to receive a ‘catechesis’ on the suffering of abuse survivors, understand better the urgent reality of combating sexual abuse. Courtney Grogan/CNA ABOARD THE PAPAL PLANE — Pope Francis said Monday that he sensed “inflated expectation” surrounding the Vatican’s February sex-abuse summit and outlined his specific aims for the meeting. Speaking on the papal flight returning from Panama, the Pope said he wanted the world’s bishops to receive a “catechesis” on the suffering of abuse survivors and understand better the urgent reality of combating sexual abuse. This understanding, he said, would lead into a penitential liturgy during the February meeting. “There will be testimonies to help to become aware and then a penitential liturgy to ask forgiveness for the whole Church,” Pope Francis told journalists Jan 28. The Pope emphasized the importance of bishops meeting with victims of sex abuse to hear their testimonies directly to understand the lasting effects of sexual abuse. Pope Francis said that he regularly meets with abuse victims. “I remember one … 40 years without being able to pray. It is terrible; the suffering is terrible,” he said. Francis also said he sensed many were expecting too much from the three-day meeting being held Feb. 21-24 and that he had a particular vision for what would be achieved: understanding the experience of victims, prayer and the establishment of “protocols” for handling abuse cases worldwide. “I permit myself to say that I’ve perceived a bit of an inflated expectation. We need to deflate the expectations to these points that I’m saying,” he said. “Because the problem of abuses will continue. It’s a human problem.” “We, resolving the problem in the Church [and] raising awareness, will help to resolve it in society … but first, we must become aware, have the protocols and move forward,” he said. Pope Francis said the Vatican invited all of the presidents of the world’s bishops’ conferences and the heads of the Eastern Catholic Churches to attend the February summit because his council of cardinal advisers “felt the responsibility to give a ‘catechesis’ … on this problem to the episcopal conferences.” Victims of clergy sexual abuse and leaders of men’s and women’s religious orders will also be present at the bishops’ summit, which the Vatican has previously clarified will be “an assembly of pastors, not an academic conference.” On the papal flight, Pope Francis expressed his desire that the heads of all of the episcopal conferences leave Rome next month with a common understanding of the “protocols” needed to address sexual abuse in their respective countries. The Pope said that each episcopal conference would make “general programs” detailing the responsibilities of each local Church authority for handling sex-abuse cases, but that these must address a common set of responsibilities. “That they are protocols that are clear. This is the main thing,” he said. In his interview on the papal flight, Pope Francis also touched on the formation and sex education of young people with regards to Church teaching. “We need to give an objective sexual education, that is without ideological colonization,” he said. “If you start by giving sexual education full of ideological colonization, you destroy the person.” The Pope warned that it is important which teachers or textbooks are chosen for this task in schools. “There are things that mature and things that do harm,” he said. “Sex as a gift from God must be taught,” Pope Francis said. “The ideal is to start from home, with the parents.” XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX TWELVE VALID CARDINALS, i.e. CARDINALS APPOINTED BY POPES BENEDICT XVI AND SAINT JOHN PAUL II, MUST ACT SOON TO REMOVE FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL FROM THE THRONE OF SAINT PETER BEFORE HE DAMAGES THE INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH EVEN MORE THAN HE HAS ALREADY DAMAGED IT. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CARDINALS OF THE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND OTHER CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN FAITHFUL IN COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE Recently many educated Catholic observers, including bishops and priests, have decried the confusion in doctrinal statements about faith or morals made from the Apostolic See at Rome and by the putative Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis. Some devout, faithful and thoughtful Catholics have even suggested that he be set aside as a heretic, a dangerous purveyor of error, as recently mentioned in a number of reports. Claiming heresy on the part of a man who is a supposed Pope, charging material error in statements about faith or morals by a putative Roman Pontiff, suggests and presents an intervening prior question about his authenticity in that August office of Successor of Peter as Chief of The Apostles, i.e., was this man the subject of a valid election by an authentic Conclave of The Holy Roman Church? This is so because each Successor of Saint Peter enjoys the Gift of Infallibility. So, before one even begins to talk about excommunicating such a prelate, one must logically examine whether this person exhibits the uniformly good and safe fruit of Infallibility. If he seems repeatedly to engage in material error, that first raises the question of the validity of his election because one expects an authentically-elected Roman Pontiff miraculously and uniformly to be entirely incapable of stating error in matters of faith or morals. So to what do we look to discern the invalidity of such an election? His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, within His massive legacy to the Church and to the World, left us with the answer to this question. The Catholic faithful must look back for an answer to a point from where we have come—to what occurred in and around the Sistine Chapel in March 2013 and how the fruits of those events have generated such widespread concern among those people of magisterial orthodoxy about confusing and, or, erroneous doctrinal statements which emanate from The Holy See. His Apostolic Constitution (Universi Dominici Gregis) which governed the supposed Conclave in March 2013 contains quite clear and specific language about the invalidating effect of departures from its norms. For example, Paragraph 76 states: “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.” From this, many believe that there is probable cause to believe that Monsignor Jorge Mario Bergoglio was never validly elected as the Bishop of Rome and Successor of Saint Peter—he never rightly took over the office of Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and therefore he does not enjoy the charism of Infallibility. If this is true, then the situation is dire because supposed papal acts may not be valid or such acts are clearly invalid, including supposed appointments to the college of electors itself. Only valid cardinals can rectify our critical situation through privately (secretly) recognizing the reality of an ongoing interregnum and preparing for an opportunity to put the process aright by obedience to the legislation of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, in that Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis. While thousands of the Catholic faithful do understand that only the cardinals who participated in the events of March 2013 within the Sistine Chapel have all the information necessary to evaluate the issue of election validity, there was public evidence sufficient for astute lay faithful to surmise with moral certainty that the March 2013 action by the College was an invalid conclave, an utter nullity. What makes this understanding of Universi Dominici Gregisparticularly cogent and plausible is the clear Promulgation Clause at the end of this Apostolic Constitution and its usage of the word “scienter” (“knowingly”). The Papal Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis thus concludes definitively with these words: “. . . knowingly or unknowingly, in any way contrary to this Constitution.” (“. . . scienter vel inscienter contra hanc Constitutionem fuerint excogitata.”) [Note that His Holiness, Pope Paul VI, had a somewhat similar promulgation clause at the end of his corresponding, now abrogated, Apostolic Constitution, Romano Pontifici Eligendo, but his does not use “scienter”, but rather uses “sciens” instead. This similar term of sciens in the earlier abrogated Constitution has an entirely different legal significance than scienter.] This word, “scienter”, is a legal term of art in Roman law, and in canon law, and in Anglo-American common law, and in each system, scienter has substantially the same significance, i.e., “guilty knowledge” or willfully knowing, criminal intent. Thus, it clearly appears that Pope John Paul II anticipated the possibility of criminal activity in the nature of a sacrilege against a process which He intended to be purely pious, private, sacramental, secret and deeply spiritual, if not miraculous, in its nature. This contextual reality reinforced in the Promulgation Clause, combined with: (1) the tenor of the whole document; (2) some other provisions of the document, e.g., Paragraph 76; (3) general provisions of canon law relating to interpretation, e.g., Canons 10 & 17; and, (4) the obvious manifest intention of the Legislator, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, tends to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the legal conclusion that Monsignor Bergoglio was never validly elected Roman Pontiff. This is so because:1. Communication of any kind with the outside world, e.g., communication did occur between the inside of the Sistine Chapel and anyone outside, including a television audience, before, during or even immediately after the Conclave;2. Any political commitment to “a candidate” and any “course of action” planned for The Church or a future pontificate, such as the extensive decade-long “pastoral” plans conceived by the Sankt Gallen hierarchs; and,3. Any departure from the required procedures of the conclave voting process as prescribed and known by a cardinal to have occurred:each was made an invalidating act, and if scienter (guilty knowledge) was present, also even a crime on the part of any cardinal or other actor, but, whether criminal or not, any such act or conduct violating the norms operated absolutely, definitively and entirely against the validity of all of the supposed Conclave proceedings. Quite apart from the apparent notorious violations of the prohibition on a cardinal promising his vote, e.g., commitments given and obtained by cardinals associated with the so-called “Sankt Gallen Mafia,” other acts destructive of conclave validity occurred. Keeping in mind that Pope John Paul II specifically focused Universi Dominici Gregis on “the seclusion and resulting concentration which an act so vital to the whole Church requires of the electors” such that “the electors can more easily dispose themselves to accept the interior movements of the Holy Spirit,” even certain openly public media broadcasting breached this seclusion by electronic broadcasts outlawed by Universi Dominici Gregis. These prohibitions include direct declarative statements outlawing any use of television before, during or after a conclave in any area associated with the proceedings, e.g.: “I further confirm, by my apostolic authority, the duty of maintaining the strictest secrecy with regard to everything that directly or indirectly concerns the election process itself.” Viewed in light of this introductory preambulary language of Universi Dominici Gregis and in light of the legislative text itself, even the EWTN camera situated far inside the Sistine Chapel was an immediately obvious non-compliant act which became an open and notorious invalidating violation by the time when this audio-visual equipment was used to broadcast to the world the preaching after the “Extra Omnes”. While these blatant public violations of Chapter IV of Universi Dominici Gregis actuate the invalidity and nullity of the proceedings themselves, nonetheless in His great wisdom, the Legislator did not disqualify automatically those cardinals who failed to recognize these particular offenses against sacred secrecy, or even those who, with scienter, having recognized the offenses and having had some power or voice in these matters, failed or refused to act or to object against them: “Should any infraction whatsoever of this norm occur and be discovered, those responsible should know that they will be subject to grave penalties according to the judgment of the future Pope.” [Universi Dominici Gregis, ¶55] No Pope apparently having been produced in March 2013, those otherwise valid cardinals who failed with scienter to act on violations of Chapter IV, on that account alone would nonetheless remain voting members of the College unless and until a new real Pope is elected and adjudges them. Thus, those otherwise valid cardinals who may have been compromised by violations of secrecy can still participate validly in the “clean-up of the mess” while addressing any such secrecy violations with an eventual new Pontiff. In contrast, the automatic excommunication of those who politicized the sacred conclave process, by obtaining illegally, commitments from cardinals to vote for a particular man, or to follow a certain course of action (even long before the vacancy of the Chair of Peter as Vicar of Christ), is established not only by the word, “scienter,” in the final enacting clause, but by a specific exception, in this case, to the general statement of invalidity which therefore reinforces the clarity of intention by Legislator that those who apply the law must interpret the general rule as truly binding. Derived directly from Roman law, canonical jurisprudence provides this principle for construing or interpreting legislation such as this Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis. Expressed in Latin, this canon of interpretation is: “Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis.” (The exception proves the rule in cases not excepted.) In this case, an exception from invalidity for acts of simony reinforces the binding force of the general principle of nullity in cases of other violations. Therefore, by exclusion from nullity and invalidity legislated in the case of simony: “If — God forbid — in the election of the Roman Pontiff the crime of simony were to be perpetrated, I decree and declare that all those guilty thereof shall incur excommunication latae sententiae. At the same time I remove the nullity or invalidity of the same simoniacal provision, in order that — as was already established by my Predecessors — the validity of the election of the Roman Pontiff may not for this reason be challenged.” His Holiness made an exception for simony. Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis. The clear exception from nullity and invalidity for simony proves the general rule that other violations of the sacred process certainly do and did result in the nullity and invalidity of the entire conclave. Comparing what Pope John Paul II wrote in His Constitution on conclaves with the Constitution which His replaced, you can see that, with the exception of simony, invalidity became universal. In the corresponding paragraph of what Pope Paul VI wrote, he specifically confined the provision declaring conclave invalidity to three (3) circumstances described in previous paragraphs within His constitution, Romano Pontfici Eligendo. No such limitation exists in Universi Dominici Gregis. See the comparison both in English and Latin below:Romano Pontfici Eligendo, 77. Should the election be conducted in a manner different from the three procedures described above (cf. no. 63 ff.) or without the conditions laid down for each of the same, it is for this very reason null and void (cf. no. 62), without the need for any declaration, and gives no right to him who has been thus elected. [Romano Pontfici Eligendo, 77: “Quodsi electio aliter celebrata fuerit, quam uno e tribus modis, qui supra sunt dicti (cfr. nn. 63 sqq.), aut non servatis condicionibus pro unoquoque illorum praescriptis, electio eo ipso est nulla et invalida (cfr. n. 62) absque ulla declaratione, et ita electo nullum ius tribuit .”] as compared with:Universi Dominici Gregis, 76: “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.” [Universi Dominici Gregis, 76: “Quodsi electio aliter celebrata fuerit, quam haec Constitutio statuit, aut non servatis condicionibus pariter hic praescriptis, electio eo ipso est nulla et invalida absque ulla declaratione, ideoque electo nullum ius tribuit.”]Of course, this is not the only feature of the Constitution or aspect of the matter which tends to establish the breadth of invalidity. Faithful must hope and pray that only those cardinals whose status as a valid member of the College remains intact will ascertain the identity of each other and move with the utmost charity and discretion in order to effectuate The Divine Will in these matters. The valid cardinals, then, must act according to that clear, manifest, obvious and unambiguous mind and intention of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, so evident in Universi Dominici Gregis, a law which finally established binding and self-actuating conditions of validity on the College for any papal conclave, a reality now made so apparent by the bad fruit of doctrinal confusion and plain error. It would seem then that praying and working in a discreet and prudent manner to encourage only those true cardinals inclined to accept a reality of conclave invalidity, would be a most charitable and logical course of action in the light of Universi Dominici Gregis, and out of our high personal regard for the clear and obvious intention of its Legislator, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II. Even a relatively small number of valid cardinals could act decisively and work to restore a functioning Apostolic See through the declaration of an interregnum government. The need is clear for the College to convene a General Congregation in order to declare, to administer, and soon to end the Interregnum which has persisted since March 2013. Finally, it is important to understand that the sheer number of putative counterfeit cardinals will eventually, sooner or later, result in a situation in which The Church will have no normal means validly ever again to elect a Vicar of Christ. After that time, it will become even more difficult, if not humanly impossible, for the College of Cardinals to rectify the current disastrous situation and conduct a proper and valid Conclave such that The Church may once again both have the benefit of a real Supreme Pontiff, and enjoy the great gift of a truly infallible Vicar of Christ. It seems that some good cardinals know that the conclave was invalid, but really cannot envision what to do about it; we must pray, if it is the Will of God, that they see declaring the invalidity and administering an Interregnum through a new valid conclave is what they must do. Without such action or without a great miracle, The Church is in a perilous situation. Once the last validly appointed cardinal reaches age 80, or before that age, dies, the process for electing a real Pope ends with no apparent legal means to replace it. Absent a miracle then, The Church would no longer have an infallible Successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ. Roman Catholics would be no different that Orthodox Christians. In this regard, all of the true cardinals may wish to consider what Holy Mother Church teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶675, ¶676 and ¶677 about “The Church’s Ultimate Trial”. But, the fact that “The Church . . . will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection” does not justify inaction by the good cardinals, even if there are only a minimal number sufficient to carry out Chapter II of Universi Dominici Gregis and operate the Interregnum. This Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis, which was clearly applicable to the acts and conduct of the College of Cardinals in March 2013, is manifestly and obviously among those “invalidating” laws “which expressly establish that an act is null or that a person is effected” as stated in Canon 10 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. And, there is nothing remotely “doubtful or obscure” (Canon 17) about this Apostolic Constitution as clearly promulgated by Pope John Paul II. The tenor of the whole document expressly establishes that the issue of invalidity was always at stake. This Apostolic Constitution conclusively establishes, through its Promulgation Clause [which makes “anything done (i.e., any act or conduct) by any person . . . in any way contrary to this Constitution,”] the invalidity of the entire supposed Conclave, rendering it “completely null and void”. So, what happens if a group of Cardinals who undoubtedly did not knowingly and wilfully initiate or intentionally participate in any acts of disobedience against Universi Dominici Gregis were to meet, confer and declare that, pursuant to Universi Dominici Gregis, Monsignor Bergoglio is most certainly not a valid Roman Pontiff. Like any action on this matter, including the initial finding of invalidity, that would be left to the valid members of the college of cardinals. They could declare the Chair of Peter vacant and proceed to a new and proper conclave. They could meet with His Holiness, Benedict XVI, and discern whether His resignation and retirement was made under duress, or based on some mistake or fraud, or otherwise not done in a legally effective manner, which could invalidate that resignation. Given the demeanor of His Holiness, Benedict XVI, and the tenor of His few public statements since his departure from the Chair of Peter, this recognition of validity in Benedict XVI seems unlikely. In fact, even before a righteous group of good and authentic cardinals might decide on the validity of the March 2013 supposed conclave, they must face what may be an even more complicated discernment and decide which men are most likely not valid cardinals. If a man was made a cardinal by the supposed Pope who is, in fact, not a Pope (but merely Monsignor Bergoglio), no such man is in reality a true member of the College of Cardinals. In addition, those men appointed by Pope John Paul II or by Pope Benedict XVI as cardinals, but who openly violated Universi Dominici Gregis by illegal acts or conduct causing the invalidation of the last attempted conclave, would no longer have voting rights in the College of Cardinals either. (Thus, the actual valid members in the College of Cardinals may be quite smaller in number than those on the current official Vatican list of supposed cardinals.) In any event, the entire problem is above the level of anyone else in Holy Mother Church who is below the rank of Cardinal. So, we must pray that The Divine Will of The Most Holy Trinity, through the intercession of Our Lady as Mediatrix of All Graces and Saint Michael, Prince of Mercy, very soon rectifies the confusion in Holy Mother Church through action by those valid Cardinals who still comprise an authentic College of Electors. Only certainly valid Cardinals can address the open and notorious evidence which points to the probable invalidity of the last supposed conclave and only those cardinals can definitively answer the questions posed here. May only the good Cardinals unite and if they recognize an ongoing Interregnum, albeit dormant, may they end this Interregnum by activating perfectly a functioning Interregnum government of The Holy See and a renewed process for a true Conclave, one which is purely pious, private, sacramental, secret and deeply spiritual. If we do not have a real Pontiff, then may the good Cardinals, doing their appointed work “in view of the sacredness of the act of election” “accept the interior movements of the Holy Spirit” and provide Holy Mother Church with a real Vicar of Christ as the Successor of Saint Peter. May these thoughts comport with the synderetic considerations of those who read them and may their presentation here please both Our Immaculate Virgin Mother, Mary, Queen of the Apostles, and The Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.N. de Plume Un ami des Papes __________________________________________

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

FRANCIS, WHO WAS ‘ELECTED’ IN A RIGGED CONCLAVE IS RIGGING THE NEXT CONCLAVE BY APPOINTING CARDINAL FARRELL TO BE IN CHARGE OF THE CONCLAVE

POPE APPOINTS CARDINAL FARRELL (FORMER BISHOP OF DALLAS) TO KEY VATICAN ROLE IN THE NEXT CONCLAVE

NEWS:WORLD NEWS

Print Friendly and PDF

by Christine Niles, M.St. (Oxon.), J.D.  •  ChurchMilitant.com  •  February 14, 2019    148 Comments

You are not signed in as a Premium user; we rely on Premium users to support our news reporting. Sign in or Sign up today!

VATICAN CITY (ChurchMilitant.com) – As Abp. Theodore McCarrick’s laicization looms, Pope Francis has appointed Cdl. Kevin Farrell to a key Vatican role.

According to Italian Vaticanista Marco Tossati, the announcement appointing Farrell as Cardinal Camerlengo (“Chamberlain”) was made Thursday morning, and is a position “central to the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.” In addition to playing a key role in formally pronouncing the end of a pope’s reign and directing preparations for the conclave, the camerlengo also becomes the de facto ruling sovereign of the Church until a new pontiff is elected. During such time he serves as executive director of the Holy See, and answers to the College of Cardinals.

As a member of the papal household, the camerlengo also oversees the real estate and revenue of the Holy See. 

The position had been left vacant since July 5 after the death of former camerlengo Cdl. Jean-Louis Tauran. 

Abp. Theodore McCarrick

Farrell, who left Dallas in 2016 when Pope Francis appointed him to head the Vatican’s Dicastery of Laity, Family and Life, is linked to disgraced homosexual predator Abp. Theodore McCarrick, his housemate of six years in Washington, D.C.

Farrell and McCarrick lived on the same floor during McCarrick’s tenure as archbishop of Washington. 

After McCarrick’s longtime homosexual predation was exposed last year, the public questioned Farrell about his knowledge of the abuse. Farrell claimed he knew nothing.

“I was shocked, overwhelmed; I never heard any of this before, the six years I was there with him,” Farrell claimed. “And never, no indication, none whatsoever, nobody ever talked to me about that.”

Farrell had issued similar denials when asked about the predatory behavior of Fr. Marcial Maciel, founder of the Legionaries of Christ, of which Farrell was a member. Maciel was later exposed as a serial sex abuser who fathered children with multiple women and even raped his own sons.Farrell had issued similar denials when asked about the predatory behavior of Fr. Marcial Maciel.Tweet

“I never knew anything back then,” he told theIrish Timesin 2016. “I worked in Monterrey, and maybe I would have met Maciel once or twice, but I never suspected anything. … I left the Legionaries because I had intellectual differences with them.”

But one longtime friend and former Legionary is contradicting his words. J. Paul Lennon, among the first group of Irish-born members of the Legion and close friend of Farrell’s brother Brian (a former Legionary who now works as secretary for the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity), claims Farrell was far closer to Maciel than he lets on.

“Kevin did know Fr. Maciel on a personal basis,” Lennon told Church Militant. “When Kevin was working in Connecticut as a Legionary priest, before he left the community circa 1984, Kevin did spend time with Fr. Maciel when he would visit that ‘front.'”

“I have been told that on at least one occasion Kevin and other Legionaries participated in a pillow fight to entertain Fr. Maciel (the sex pervert),” he added.

The Vatican Dossier

Farrell is allegedly linked to a Vatican dossier detailing longstanding sex abuse. 

Il Fatto Quotidiano, an Italian journal read by Vatican officials, confirmed in September that it had seen a 300-page dossier detailing corruption and malfeasance in the Vatican.

“The report contains a detailed and disturbing picture of the moral and material corruption of the clergy, with names, surnames and circumstances,” wrote Francesca Fagnani.

We are … able to view a document on papal letterhead included in the investigation, and here we publish an excerpt: It is a list of prelates and laymen who belong to the so-called gay lobby, which through blackmail and secrets could affect, or have conditioned, positions and careers (theirs, like those of others).

We will not reveal the names shown in the list, but we can confirm that among the names there are people removed by the Pope, others moved from office, others who still hold important positions in strategic organs for the Vatican, such as Propaganda Fide and even the Secretariat of State.

Among those implicated in the dossier is Cdl. Farrell. 

“Farrell was appointed auxiliary bishop of Washington precisely because it was McCarrick who wanted him as a deputy,” Fagnani reported in a September 4 article focusing on a Farrell dossier. “The two were part of the ‘magic circle’ of Pope Francis.”

[A case] on the auxiliary bishop of Washington, Kevin Joseph Farrell, is said to have been filed at the Congregation for the Doctrine for the Faith in the Vatican, at the Dicastery that is responsible for investigating sexual and other crimes against good morals, which, if not rebutted, would fall squarely on the Pope like a boulder. Farrell [was] appointed directly by Bergoglio to head the Dicastery of the Family.

The Vatican has refused to confirm or deny the existence of the dossier.

Lawsuit for Abuse Cover-Up

Farrell is the subject of a recent lawsuit filed by an alleged abuse victim who claims Farrell, when he was bishop of Dallas, Texas, dismissed his abuse as “consensual” in nature because it allegedly took place when the victim was over 17, even though the priest was much older and had sexually groomed him from age 12.

In September 2015, the alleged victim, John Doe, informed the diocese of sexual misconduct that took place at the hands of Fr. Timothy Heines, presenting as proof a scrapbook of photos Heines took of Doe when he was in middle school. The priest was in the habit of asking Doe to take off his shirt for photos, sometimes asking him to pose in sexually suggestive ways. Doe also claims Heines gave him hot oil massages and touched his genitals. 

After an investigation, Bp. Farrell personally met with Doe and assured him he would remove the priest from active ministry. But the bishop’s public statement on Heines’ removal claimed it was owing to “serious boundary violations with adults. … I emphasize that involved inappropriate relationships with adults.”‘Bishop Farrell began describing John Doe as a ‘consenting adult’ and refused to acknowledge the abuse he suffered as a minor,’ the lawsuit claims.Tweet

“Bishop Farrell began describing John Doe as a ‘consenting adult’ and refused to acknowledge the abuse he suffered as a minor,” the lawsuit claims.

Because of Farrell’s characterization of the relationship as consensual, he failed to report the abuse to the diocesan review board or to the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith — a requirement if there had been evidence of sex abuse of a minor.

“The Diocese has a copy of that scrapbook and has had one since my client came forward in 2015,” said Doe’s attorney, Lacey Turley Most. “With having that scrapbook, I don’t understand why they would describe this as a ‘boundary violation’ and say my client is a consenting adult.”

“Bishop Burns [current Dallas bishop] described the review board as a board made up of lay persons who are responsible for holding the Diocese accountable for keeping a safe environment,” Most added, “so it’s a big problem if then-Bishop Farrell made the decision to not report that abuse.”

As a result of feeling “revictimized” by the diocese, Doe attempted suicide on several occasions.

The diocese has filed a rebuttal claiming Doe never informed the diocese about any sexual abuse he suffered as a minor. It has not addressed Farrell’s comments writing off Doe’s relationship with Heines as “consensual.”

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

TWELVE VALID CARDINALS, i.e. CARDINALS APPOINTED BY POPES BENEDICT XVI AND SAINT JOHN PAUL II, MUST ACT SOON TO REMOVE FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL FROM THE THRONE OF SAINT PETER BEFORE HE DAMAGES THE INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH EVEN MORE THAN HE HAS ALREADY DAMAGED IT. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CARDINALS OF THE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND OTHER CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN FAITHFUL IN COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE Recently many educated Catholic observers, including bishops and priests, have decried the confusion in doctrinal statements about faith or morals made from the Apostolic See at Rome and by the putative Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis. Some devout, faithful and thoughtful Catholics have even suggested that he be set aside as a heretic, a dangerous purveyor of error, as recently mentioned in a number of reports. Claiming heresy on the part of a man who is a supposed Pope, charging material error in statements about faith or morals by a putative Roman Pontiff, suggests and presents an intervening prior question about his authenticity in that August office of Successor of Peter as Chief of The Apostles, i.e., was this man the subject of a valid election by an authentic Conclave of The Holy Roman Church? This is so because each Successor of Saint Peter enjoys the Gift of Infallibility. So, before one even begins to talk about excommunicating such a prelate, one must logically examine whether this person exhibits the uniformly good and safe fruit of Infallibility. If he seems repeatedly to engage in material error, that first raises the question of the validity of his election because one expects an authentically-elected Roman Pontiff miraculously and uniformly to be entirely incapable of stating error in matters of faith or morals. So to what do we look to discern the invalidity of such an election? His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, within His massive legacy to the Church and to the World, left us with the answer to this question. The Catholic faithful must look back for an answer to a point from where we have come—to what occurred in and around the Sistine Chapel in March 2013 and how the fruits of those events have generated such widespread concern among those people of magisterial orthodoxy about confusing and, or, erroneous doctrinal statements which emanate from The Holy See. His Apostolic Constitution (Universi Dominici Gregis) which governed the supposed Conclave in March 2013 contains quite clear and specific language about the invalidating effect of departures from its norms. For example, Paragraph 76 states: “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.” From this, many believe that there is probable cause to believe that Monsignor Jorge Mario Bergoglio was never validly elected as the Bishop of Rome and Successor of Saint Peter—he never rightly took over the office of Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and therefore he does not enjoy the charism of Infallibility. If this is true, then the situation is dire because supposed papal acts may not be valid or such acts are clearly invalid, including supposed appointments to the college of electors itself. Only valid cardinals can rectify our critical situation through privately (secretly) recognizing the reality of an ongoing interregnum and preparing for an opportunity to put the process aright by obedience to the legislation of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, in that Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis. While thousands of the Catholic faithful do understand that only the cardinals who participated in the events of March 2013 within the Sistine Chapel have all the information necessary to evaluate the issue of election validity, there was public evidence sufficient for astute lay faithful to surmise with moral certainty that the March 2013 action by the College was an invalid conclave, an utter nullity. What makes this understanding of Universi Dominici Gregisparticularly cogent and plausible is the clear Promulgation Clause at the end of this Apostolic Constitution and its usage of the word “scienter” (“knowingly”). The Papal Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis thus concludes definitively with these words: “. . . knowingly or unknowingly, in any way contrary to this Constitution.” (“. . . scienter vel inscienter contra hanc Constitutionem fuerint excogitata.”) [Note that His Holiness, Pope Paul VI, had a somewhat similar promulgation clause at the end of his corresponding, now abrogated, Apostolic Constitution, Romano Pontifici Eligendo, but his does not use “scienter”, but rather uses “sciens” instead. This similar term of sciens in the earlier abrogated Constitution has an entirely different legal significance than scienter.] This word, “scienter”, is a legal term of art in Roman law, and in canon law, and in Anglo-American common law, and in each system, scienter has substantially the same significance, i.e., “guilty knowledge” or willfully knowing, criminal intent. Thus, it clearly appears that Pope John Paul II anticipated the possibility of criminal activity in the nature of a sacrilege against a process which He intended to be purely pious, private, sacramental, secret and deeply spiritual, if not miraculous, in its nature. This contextual reality reinforced in the Promulgation Clause, combined with: (1) the tenor of the whole document; (2) some other provisions of the document, e.g., Paragraph 76; (3) general provisions of canon law relating to interpretation, e.g., Canons 10 & 17; and, (4) the obvious manifest intention of the Legislator, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, tends to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the legal conclusion that Monsignor Bergoglio was never validly elected Roman Pontiff. This is so because:1. Communication of any kind with the outside world, e.g., communication did occur between the inside of the Sistine Chapel and anyone outside, including a television audience, before, during or even immediately after the Conclave;2. Any political commitment to “a candidate” and any “course of action” planned for The Church or a future pontificate, such as the extensive decade-long “pastoral” plans conceived by the Sankt Gallen hierarchs; and,3. Any departure from the required procedures of the conclave voting process as prescribed and known by a cardinal to have occurred:each was made an invalidating act, and if scienter (guilty knowledge) was present, also even a crime on the part of any cardinal or other actor, but, whether criminal or not, any such act or conduct violating the norms operated absolutely, definitively and entirely against the validity of all of the supposed Conclave proceedings. Quite apart from the apparent notorious violations of the prohibition on a cardinal promising his vote, e.g., commitments given and obtained by cardinals associated with the so-called “Sankt Gallen Mafia,” other acts destructive of conclave validity occurred. Keeping in mind that Pope John Paul II specifically focused Universi Dominici Gregis on “the seclusion and resulting concentration which an act so vital to the whole Church requires of the electors” such that “the electors can more easily dispose themselves to accept the interior movements of the Holy Spirit,” even certain openly public media broadcasting breached this seclusion by electronic broadcasts outlawed by Universi Dominici Gregis. These prohibitions include direct declarative statements outlawing any use of television before, during or after a conclave in any area associated with the proceedings, e.g.: “I further confirm, by my apostolic authority, the duty of maintaining the strictest secrecy with regard to everything that directly or indirectly concerns the election process itself.” Viewed in light of this introductory preambulary language of Universi Dominici Gregis and in light of the legislative text itself, even the EWTN camera situated far inside the Sistine Chapel was an immediately obvious non-compliant act which became an open and notorious invalidating violation by the time when this audio-visual equipment was used to broadcast to the world the preaching after the “Extra Omnes”. While these blatant public violations of Chapter IV of Universi Dominici Gregis actuate the invalidity and nullity of the proceedings themselves, nonetheless in His great wisdom, the Legislator did not disqualify automatically those cardinals who failed to recognize these particular offenses against sacred secrecy, or even those who, with scienter, having recognized the offenses and having had some power or voice in these matters, failed or refused to act or to object against them: “Should any infraction whatsoever of this norm occur and be discovered, those responsible should know that they will be subject to grave penalties according to the judgment of the future Pope.” [Universi Dominici Gregis, ¶55] No Pope apparently having been produced in March 2013, those otherwise valid cardinals who failed with scienter to act on violations of Chapter IV, on that account alone would nonetheless remain voting members of the College unless and until a new real Pope is elected and adjudges them. Thus, those otherwise valid cardinals who may have been compromised by violations of secrecy can still participate validly in the “clean-up of the mess” while addressing any such secrecy violations with an eventual new Pontiff. In contrast, the automatic excommunication of those who politicized the sacred conclave process, by obtaining illegally, commitments from cardinals to vote for a particular man, or to follow a certain course of action (even long before the vacancy of the Chair of Peter as Vicar of Christ), is established not only by the word, “scienter,” in the final enacting clause, but by a specific exception, in this case, to the general statement of invalidity which therefore reinforces the clarity of intention by Legislator that those who apply the law must interpret the general rule as truly binding. Derived directly from Roman law, canonical jurisprudence provides this principle for construing or interpreting legislation such as this Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis. Expressed in Latin, this canon of interpretation is: “Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis.” (The exception proves the rule in cases not excepted.) In this case, an exception from invalidity for acts of simony reinforces the binding force of the general principle of nullity in cases of other violations. Therefore, by exclusion from nullity and invalidity legislated in the case of simony: “If — God forbid — in the election of the Roman Pontiff the crime of simony were to be perpetrated, I decree and declare that all those guilty thereof shall incur excommunication latae sententiae. At the same time I remove the nullity or invalidity of the same simoniacal provision, in order that — as was already established by my Predecessors — the validity of the election of the Roman Pontiff may not for this reason be challenged.” His Holiness made an exception for simony. Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis. The clear exception from nullity and invalidity for simony proves the general rule that other violations of the sacred process certainly do and did result in the nullity and invalidity of the entire conclave. Comparing what Pope John Paul II wrote in His Constitution on conclaves with the Constitution which His replaced, you can see that, with the exception of simony, invalidity became universal. In the corresponding paragraph of what Pope Paul VI wrote, he specifically confined the provision declaring conclave invalidity to three (3) circumstances described in previous paragraphs within His constitution, Romano Pontfici Eligendo. No such limitation exists in Universi Dominici Gregis. See the comparison both in English and Latin below:Romano Pontfici Eligendo, 77. Should the election be conducted in a manner different from the three procedures described above (cf. no. 63 ff.) or without the conditions laid down for each of the same, it is for this very reason null and void (cf. no. 62), without the need for any declaration, and gives no right to him who has been thus elected. [Romano Pontfici Eligendo, 77: “Quodsi electio aliter celebrata fuerit, quam uno e tribus modis, qui supra sunt dicti (cfr. nn. 63 sqq.), aut non servatis condicionibus pro unoquoque illorum praescriptis, electio eo ipso est nulla et invalida (cfr. n. 62) absque ulla declaratione, et ita electo nullum ius tribuit .”] as compared with:Universi Dominici Gregis, 76: “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.” [Universi Dominici Gregis, 76: “Quodsi electio aliter celebrata fuerit, quam haec Constitutio statuit, aut non servatis condicionibus pariter hic praescriptis, electio eo ipso est nulla et invalida absque ulla declaratione, ideoque electo nullum ius tribuit.”]Of course, this is not the only feature of the Constitution or aspect of the matter which tends to establish the breadth of invalidity. Faithful must hope and pray that only those cardinals whose status as a valid member of the College remains intact will ascertain the identity of each other and move with the utmost charity and discretion in order to effectuate The Divine Will in these matters. The valid cardinals, then, must act according to that clear, manifest, obvious and unambiguous mind and intention of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, so evident in Universi Dominici Gregis, a law which finally established binding and self-actuating conditions of validity on the College for any papal conclave, a reality now made so apparent by the bad fruit of doctrinal confusion and plain error. It would seem then that praying and working in a discreet and prudent manner to encourage only those true cardinals inclined to accept a reality of conclave invalidity, would be a most charitable and logical course of action in the light of Universi Dominici Gregis, and out of our high personal regard for the clear and obvious intention of its Legislator, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II. Even a relatively small number of valid cardinals could act decisively and work to restore a functioning Apostolic See through the declaration of an interregnum government. The need is clear for the College to convene a General Congregation in order to declare, to administer, and soon to end the Interregnum which has persisted since March 2013. Finally, it is important to understand that the sheer number of putative counterfeit cardinals will eventually, sooner or later, result in a situation in which The Church will have no normal means validly ever again to elect a Vicar of Christ. After that time, it will become even more difficult, if not humanly impossible, for the College of Cardinals to rectify the current disastrous situation and conduct a proper and valid Conclave such that The Church may once again both have the benefit of a real Supreme Pontiff, and enjoy the great gift of a truly infallible Vicar of Christ. It seems that some good cardinals know that the conclave was invalid, but really cannot envision what to do about it; we must pray, if it is the Will of God, that they see declaring the invalidity and administering an Interregnum through a new valid conclave is what they must do. Without such action or without a great miracle, The Church is in a perilous situation. Once the last validly appointed cardinal reaches age 80, or before that age, dies, the process for electing a real Pope ends with no apparent legal means to replace it. Absent a miracle then, The Church would no longer have an infallible Successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ. Roman Catholics would be no different that Orthodox Christians. In this regard, all of the true cardinals may wish to consider what Holy Mother Church teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶675, ¶676 and ¶677 about “The Church’s Ultimate Trial”. But, the fact that “The Church . . . will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection” does not justify inaction by the good cardinals, even if there are only a minimal number sufficient to carry out Chapter II of Universi Dominici Gregis and operate the Interregnum. This Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis, which was clearly applicable to the acts and conduct of the College of Cardinals in March 2013, is manifestly and obviously among those “invalidating” laws “which expressly establish that an act is null or that a person is effected” as stated in Canon 10 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. And, there is nothing remotely “doubtful or obscure” (Canon 17) about this Apostolic Constitution as clearly promulgated by Pope John Paul II. The tenor of the whole document expressly establishes that the issue of invalidity was always at stake. This Apostolic Constitution conclusively establishes, through its Promulgation Clause [which makes “anything done (i.e., any act or conduct) by any person . . . in any way contrary to this Constitution,”] the invalidity of the entire supposed Conclave, rendering it “completely null and void”. So, what happens if a group of Cardinals who undoubtedly did not knowingly and wilfully initiate or intentionally participate in any acts of disobedience against Universi Dominici Gregis were to meet, confer and declare that, pursuant to Universi Dominici Gregis, Monsignor Bergoglio is most certainly not a valid Roman Pontiff. Like any action on this matter, including the initial finding of invalidity, that would be left to the valid members of the college of cardinals. They could declare the Chair of Peter vacant and proceed to a new and proper conclave. They could meet with His Holiness, Benedict XVI, and discern whether His resignation and retirement was made under duress, or based on some mistake or fraud, or otherwise not done in a legally effective manner, which could invalidate that resignation. Given the demeanor of His Holiness, Benedict XVI, and the tenor of His few public statements since his departure from the Chair of Peter, this recognition of validity in Benedict XVI seems unlikely. In fact, even before a righteous group of good and authentic cardinals might decide on the validity of the March 2013 supposed conclave, they must face what may be an even more complicated discernment and decide which men are most likely not valid cardinals. If a man was made a cardinal by the supposed Pope who is, in fact, not a Pope (but merely Monsignor Bergoglio), no such man is in reality a true member of the College of Cardinals. In addition, those men appointed by Pope John Paul II or by Pope Benedict XVI as cardinals, but who openly violated Universi Dominici Gregis by illegal acts or conduct causing the invalidation of the last attempted conclave, would no longer have voting rights in the College of Cardinals either. (Thus, the actual valid members in the College of Cardinals may be quite smaller in number than those on the current official Vatican list of supposed cardinals.) In any event, the entire problem is above the level of anyone else in Holy Mother Church who is below the rank of Cardinal. So, we must pray that The Divine Will of The Most Holy Trinity, through the intercession of Our Lady as Mediatrix of All Graces and Saint Michael, Prince of Mercy, very soon rectifies the confusion in Holy Mother Church through action by those valid Cardinals who still comprise an authentic College of Electors. Only certainly valid Cardinals can address the open and notorious evidence which points to the probable invalidity of the last supposed conclave and only those cardinals can definitively answer the questions posed here. May only the good Cardinals unite and if they recognize an ongoing Interregnum, albeit dormant, may they end this Interregnum by activating perfectly a functioning Interregnum government of The Holy See and a renewed process for a true Conclave, one which is purely pious, private, sacramental, secret and deeply spiritual. If we do not have a real Pontiff, then may the good Cardinals, doing their appointed work “in view of the sacredness of the act of election” “accept the interior movements of the Holy Spirit” and provide Holy Mother Church with a real Vicar of Christ as the Successor of Saint Peter. May these thoughts comport with the synderetic considerations of those who read them and may their presentation here please both Our Immaculate Virgin Mother, Mary, Queen of the Apostles, and The Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.N. de Plume Un ami des Papes __________________________________________

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

THE POOR ARE SURE LOSERS WHEN SOCIALISTS GAIN POWER AND INFLUENCE e.g. MADERO IN VENEZUELA AND Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez IN New York


FOR RELIGIOUS AND CIVIL RIGHTS
Champions Of The Poor Sink The Poor In NYC
February 15, 2019Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on why Amazon bolted from New York City:
 
Amazon was ready to provide jobs for 25,000 to 40,000 New Yorkers, bringing in an estimated $27 billion in tax revenue over 25 years. It was asking for $3 billion in government incentives, a figure that surely could have been negotiated to reflect a more realistic deal. But instead of working with Amazon, left-wing New York lawmakers and activists trashed the corporation, pushing it to relocate elsewhere.
 
To show how radical the Left has become in New York City, the New York Times ran a front-page headline that no one ever expected to read: “Stunning Loss for Cuomo and de Blasio is Win for Left.”
 
If these two left-wing politicians are no longer considered part of the Left, then the Left is unrecognizable. Who’s left? Fanatics and economic illiterates?
 
No one was happier killing the Amazon jobs than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the heralded friend of the poor who was raised in a tony Westchester neighborhood and who now lives in a luxury apartment building in Washington, D.C. She accused Amazon of “worker exploitation.”
 
She did not explain why workers who were slated to earn an average salary of $150,000 should be considered exploited. Nor did those union leaders who worked to scrub the Amazon deal.
 
Ocasio-Cortez and her flock may talk a good game on helping the poor, but in reality they are the poor’s worst nightmare. Consider the following data.
 
A recent Siena College poll revealed that 70% of black voters wanted the
Amazon deal. Among Latinos, the figure jumped to 81%. Only a slight majority of whites, 51%, wanted it.
 
A Quinnipiac University poll found that those who were the most likely to support the deal lived in the city’s poorest borough, the Bronx. Queens, where the jobs were to be anchored, was the second most supportive. The richest of the five boroughs, Manhattan, was the least supportive.
 
As with the Siena survey, Latinos were the most supportive, followed closely by blacks; whites were the least supportive.
 
In other words, the poor got hosed by their professed friends. As we have seen time and again in history, the poor are more likely to be oppressed than liberated by those who champion their cause.
 
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

QUESTION: WILL HISTORY REPEAT ITSELF, AFTER FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL IS NO LONGER THE OCCUPANT OF THE CHAIR OF PETER, AND THE NEXT POPE SUPPRESSES THE JESUITS AGAIN?

CATHOLIC LEAGUE
FOR RELIGIOUS AND CIVIL RIGHTS
Phony Georgetown Slavery Debate
February 15, 2019

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on Georgetown’s latest debacle over slavery:
 
The idea that Georgetown University should pay reparations for slavery has been kicking around for a few years on the Jesuit campus. In 1838, Georgetown sold 272 slaves to help pay off its debts. Now there is a proposal that would require students to pay for it: a student fee would be assessed.
 
The referendum is a joke. Why are students dishing up cash for something they had nothing to do with? Why aren’t members of the board of directors (many of whom are millionaires), administrators, the faculty, and alumni paying for it? They represent the university more than the students, and they have the kind of money the students don’t have. Why are they allowing this exercise in regressive taxation—the kind the professors rail about all the time in the classroom—to take place?
 
It’s even more absurd than this. All of these parties to this grand display of white guilt are phonies. Georgetown employs a professor, Jonathan Brown, who justifies slavery.
 
In 2017, the convert to Islam told the crowd at the Institute for Islamic Thought, where he teaches, that “there is no such thing as slavery.” Indeed, he said, “I don’t think you can talk about slavery in Islam until you realize that there is no such thing as slavery.”
 
Some student should ask this wizard why there is slavery in Mauritania and Somalia today. The masters are Muslims. They may also want to ask him to explain why he says, “Slavery cannot be treated as a moral evil in and of itself.” It would be enlightening to learn why.
 
If the Georgetown ruling class is okay with having a tenured professor teaching that slavery is not necessarily a moral evil—in the 21st century—why are they so exercised about slavery in the 19th century?  Finally, if the students have to pony up, shouldn’t Brown be hit with a surcharge?
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment